22 comments:

I apologize ahead of time; this is off topic. I have a question on the latest show about Pascal's wager and wasn’t sure where else to comment. I also apologize that I’m still not familiar with the names of the hosts though I’ve been listening to the podcast for some time.

It was mentioned that in places with high levels of crime, teen pregnancy, and other generally undesirable social ills are also places with higher levels of religiosity. The conversation from there seemed to accept that religion caused the ills. My question is: Isn’t this an example of taking correlation as causation? Could it not be interpreted as people living amidst all these social ills are more likely to turn to religion in order to cope? Let’s stay honest it’s more effective.

Otherwise the show was great, as usual. Love the show. Keep up the great work!

Atheist believe in people,Derek

P.S.- I’d love to hear more of what’s-her-name’s study of the origins and influences of the various bible stories.

Nice way to lump believers and non believers together or true converts with false converts. dose of "Christian love" People say that because someone claims to be a believer and never acts like it must mean all believers are like that. That is like saying because one atheist rapes children they all do. I am not condoning that type of conversation besides it is just gossip. To make a point though I believe you are skewing things to fit your beliefs.

Let me use an example of what is going on here at this blog quite a bit. If I was to make the statement “Adolph Hitler said that all Jews should die” and the atheist I am talking to says to others “Dan said all Jews should die” Now the statement that I said “Jews should die” was true but it was taken out of context. And the atheist misrepresented what is being said by me. You are skewing things to fit your beliefs or back up what you think is the “truth”. Let me use an example of something Tracie said in the last blog. What is being said here, takes the bible completely out of context. We will take a look later at what those verses was actually saying in context.

To give some background, Stephen posed this in a past blog,

“The atheist equivalent of the famous Christian …" 2) Commit to sorting truth from falsehood, no matter how embarrassing, uncomfortable or painful the process and conclusions may turn out to be. After all, surely a God worthy of worship would want you to commit to discovering truth, with all humility and integrity.3) Bada bing, bada boom, yada yada yada... you're an atheist! (When did that happen?)

It all goes back to caring whether or not your beliefs are actually true. That's the catalyst. That's where it begins.”

(To clarify the atheist believes the gospel and Jesus is all false and lies just look at past blogs, that truth is science.)

Then I posed to you all “Prove that science, or the pursuit there of, is desired by God for us to seek then the Truth of the Lord”

Traci response was “Of course I can scripturally back my claim that truth is preferable to lies.

Just for grins, how about Psalm 15:2-5?

"He...who speaks the truth from his heart...will never be shaken"

Psalm 31:5 calls Yaweh "the God of truth"--which would seem to be placing a value on truth?

Here's a really good one: Psalm 52: 3: "You love evil rather than speaking the truth."

It sounds to me that the Bible very much places a high value on truth. And I would say that it places a high value on truth over falsehood across the board. This makes verification for a Xian--knowing what he/she says is true--extremely important, I would think”

First 15:2-5 she claimed it says this "He...who speaks the truth from his heart...will never be shaken"In fact it says this “He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth(Gossip) not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.”The truth is the person who walks in righteousness and fears the LORD. Not a pursuit of science. Next Psalm 31:5 she claims “the God of truth"--which would seem to be placing a value on truth?. In fact the purpose of this psalm was talking about the lying of the wicked (not saved i.e. atheist) later at 31:16-19 it says “Make thy face to shine upon thy servant: save me for thy mercies' sake. Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave. Let the lying lips be put to silence; which speak grievous things proudly and contemptuously against the righteous.. Oh how great is thy goodness, which thou hast laid up for them that fear thee; which thou hast wrought for them that trust in thee before the sons of men! Moving on to Psalm 45:4 she states “God riding forth "victoriously in behalf of truth..." That sounds like the psalmist considers that god values truth?Look what she leaves out. Psalm 45:4-7 states: “And in thy majesty ride prosperously because of truth and meekness and righteousness; and thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under thee. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. See again how the psalmist is talking about atheist, or in that day they called non believers wicked. The truth is Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. Do you mean that truth Tracie? Moving on.In Psalm 51:6 Tracie claims that god "surely" desires truth in the "inner parts" of people. Lets take a look at Psalm 51 in its context shall we:Psalm 51:1-5 states Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. God know our sinful nature, something an atheist will never admit to, and the truth is. Psalm 51:9-17 states Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness. O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.Psalm 51: 13 “Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.” Because of the gratefulness the psalmist is willing to preach the good news so the “Truth” here again is the acknowledgement of being a sinner and being grateful enough to do God’s bidding which is preach to the world of God’s grace. So are you ready for the truth atheists? Are you ready to preach the good news? You hypocrites, don’t you know what truth is; you’re wicked now that is the truth. Tracie claims “Here's a really good one: Psalm 52: 3:” Psalm 52 in entirety and context says “Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually. The tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah. The righteous also shall see, and fear, and shall laugh at him: Lo, this is the man that made not God his strength; but trusted in the abundance of his riches, and strengthened himself in his wickedness. But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God: I trust in the mercy of God for ever and ever. I will praise thee for ever, because thou hast done it: and I will wait on thy name; for it is good before thy saints.”Do you really want the truth our little atheists, The truth is God and the liars are the wicked atheist who will end up in hell without turning away from their prideful boastful self and following Jesus. Here is a great one that even an atheist can’t deny.psalms 86:11-13 is the truth not what you are saying.

Tracie pointed out “I'm saying that until god manifests, there is no reason to believe in god. There may be a god-“ and she calls herself an atheist, then she defined agnostics this way "Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without" and gnosis, "knowledge", translating to unknowable) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable."

Tracie calls herself, as many others at this blog, as an atheist one who “denies the existence” of God (i.e. No God) and she states there may be a God because she has no knowledge of one. Sounds line agnostic to me. So there show title is a lie and misrepresents the ones here at this site.

Define Atheist “a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God

Atheist would have you believe it to mean no belief in God but you can clearly see that it means denial or disbelieves of God’s existence or NO GOD. How arrogant indeed. Prove this ignorant fallacy. I think I have proven my truth of being a Christian or follower of Jesus Christ. Prove your label which none of you have done yet.

Our good friend Ray stated today “Many Christians live in monasteries without walls. They fellowship in the holy huddle and cozy comfort of the Saved. Excommunicate yourself from the monastery. We are called to be in, but not of the world: "That you may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom you shine as lights in the world."(Philippians 2:15) We should be accused (like Jesus) of being a friend of sinners, and our mingling with them should be motivated by a deep concern for their eternal welfare. This is something that you will have to make yourself do if you want to do what God tells you to do. He proved His love for you by dying on the cross. Now you prove your love for Him by taking that cross to a dying world.”

Dan, you've slipped your tracks again. You've just posted a 1,907 word screed that has absolutely nothing to do with the story or with what either I or anonymous posted.

As for:Dan said:I think I have proven my truth of being a Christian or follower of Jesus Christ. Well, let's just say you haven't exhibited a great deal of truthfulness here. For example, on 3/13/07 at 1:45pm, you stated, "From now on I will only give you verses for an answer." You managed to do that exactly once (3/14/07 at 2:29pm) and were right back to posting in your normal fashion by 5:04pm the same day--13,324 words worth since your 'promise'. Or how about your comment, "Lets look at the evidence the meaning of the word sat=to please and tanist, meaning ‘dark twin’. How would one please the dark twin?" You never (to the best of my knowledge) admitted you were wrong about that, so I can add intellectual dishonesty to your basic dishonesty. You're unable to be truthful about small matters like these, yet you expect me to take your word on whether or not I should believe in your conception of a god? Do you not see where a lack of truthfulness in one area might lead someone to think you're untruthful in others?

And Atheist in a Mini-van--kind of. But it's so much like a car accident, it's hard to look away even when it's in your best interests to do so. Especially when Dan's accusing atheists of skewing the truth--my irony meter exploded again.

Dan whined: People say that because someone claims to be a believer and never acts like it must mean all believers are like that.

Did the original post, or the headline, say anything of the sort? No it didn't. And notice the phrase "Christian love" was in quotes, meaning I was mocking how this individual seemed to feel he was some great Christian, yet engaged in appalling abusive behavior. Irony, you see. Something Dan doesn't get. Of course most Christians who aren't psychotic assholes would be just as appalled by the behavior and language of Possummomma's -- ahem -- fan. For Dan to think I was projecting Dick's behavior upon all Christians (whose number would include my own parents) is another example of his reactionary fooloshness and inability to comprehend simple concepts.

Anonymous asked...It was mentioned that in places with high levels of crime, teen pregnancy, and other generally undesirable social ills are also places with higher levels of religiosity. The conversation from there seemed to accept that religion caused the ills. My question is: Isn’t this an example of taking correlation as causation?

Yes, the study is clear that this is a matter of correlation and not causation. Don mentioned this during the show. We've talked about this study a number of times and always tried to remind people that it's an example of correlation and not necessarily causation. Don mentioned on Sunday's show that he thinks it's possible that a good case for causation can be made - and I think he's correct, but we're not asserting that it's necessarily true.

One thing the study does demonstrate is that the common claim that religion leads to a better society - is demonstrably false. As is the claim that a lack of religion leads to social decline.

Nice way to lump believers and non believers together or true converts with false converts.

Until you folks can come up with a clear consensus on who is a true convert and who is a false convert - I'm going to continue to let people label themselves. If someone claims to be a Christian - they're a Christian. It's not my responsibility to clean your house.

That is like saying because one atheist rapes children they all do.

No, it's not. Nowhere did any of us claim that all Christians respond that way - but it is a typical response that we receive. You've spewed similar venom our direction, right down to relying on sensationalistic comparisons...like the one in that very sentence.

The difference, my friend, is that if an atheist rapes a child - their atheism is completely irrelevant to the act. They're not doing it because they're an atheist. They don't claim to be raping that child in the name of atheism. In the case of the vitriol tossed at Possummomma, the opposite is true: the nonsense they're spewing is a direct result of their Christian beliefs. You're free to claim that they're wrong - but they believe they're right and they are the ones linking their statements to Christianity, they are the ones who claim to do it in the name of Jesus - not us.

If you've got a bone to pick - it's with them, not us. Directing your anger at us is simply a case of blaming the messenger.

First 15:2-5 she claimed it says this "He...who speaks the truth from his heart...will never be shaken"In fact it says this “He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.

You, sir, are an unbelievable idiot. You're quoting from one translation, she was quoting from another. Can you not even understand what your own translation means?

And how many times are you simply going to spew Bible verses that you claim are true - when you know that the first thing you have to do is demonstrate that they are actually true? When are you going to realize that you can quote the entire book and it does no good? I've read it. I've studied it. I've studied it in the original languages with dictionaries, concordances, notes from scholars and theologians - and I did this while I believed the nonsense that you believe.

I reject the claim that your holy book is true, reliable, authoritative or even "good". Demonstrate that I'm wrong - and then Bible quotes will actually carry weight.

Let's try this:

I have a book, and my book says your book is wrong. Can you prove that my book is wrong?

I am an agnostic atheist. I have not denied this. Again, you take the definition of atheist, and you parse out the part you want to ignore: "disbelieves". Anyone who denies OR disbelieves god exists is an atheist. Anyone who says the knowledge is lacking is an agnostic.

I believe there is insufficient knowledge to support the claim of god's existence (agnostic), and therefore I disbelieve in the existence of god (atheist), I am one of many agnostic atheists.

It is no different than your stance on fairies:

You don't believe there is knowledge to support belief in them, so you do not believe they exist.

You don't believe in them, and you don't believe the knowledge is there to support belief in them.

I still fail to grasp which part of this you're not understanding.

With regard to your Bible quotes on truth. Can you show me where I claimed the Bible didn't say that "god exists" is truth? That was not the question though. The question wasn't "What does the Bible say is true?" The question was: Does the Bible value truth over falsehood?

I was responding to that question. The Bible _does_ value truth over falsehood.

Now whether or not what the Bible claims as "true" is _actually_ true is another question that I was not attempting to answer. So your "context" was irrelevant. I don't deny the Bible claims god is real. I deny it supports that claim.

AND in light of what it says about upholding what is TRUE, it would seem odd for a Xian to argue that the only "truth" that matters is that god exists--even if it might not be actually true--which is what you're claiming when you use your "context" argument.

Meanwhile, there is a command to not bear false witness: According to you, that should only apply to god, and I can say other false things, and that's OK.

As a Xian, I valued what was true. And when I saw that what was true conflicted with my belief in god's existence, then truth won out.

You also keep saying science is truth--but I have never said that, and I'm skeptical anyone else here has as well. I'd like to see that quote.

In actuality, scientific method is the best mode of determining true regarding existent items. But that is not the same as saying science is truth. Scientific views change--truth does not change. New information requires that one adjust one's views. This is the caveate that creates the "there may be a god" opening. However, without sufficient evidence to support the idea that a god exists, it makes no sense to believe in one--in the same way it makes no sense to believe in fairies. Belief in god is just as supported as belief in fairies.

Again, if there is no god, then your ideas about the Bible, the universe, and Jesus are mistaken and there is another explanation you have failed to consider. So, proving a god exists is paramount to support your other claims.

When I say: “I am an agnostic atheist.” I want to point out that I wasn’t trying to be sneaky withholding this, the point simply never came up before as relevant. But if you go back and reread my posts, you’ll see I’ve supported the agnostic/atheist stance throughout my posts:

“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. In other words, if I do not actively adopt a belief in god, I am an atheist. This means that people who, for example, say “I’m not sure if I believe there is a god or not,” are atheists—because they do not have belief in god. They lack belief in god, and are by definition atheists. Many people confuse this with agnosticism, but an agnostic is a statement of knowledge, and not comparable to an atheist, because they deal with different realms (belief versus knowledge)—they’re apples and oranges. Most agnostics would also be atheists, because they feel there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of god’s existence. An agnostic could still believe in god, but it is odd to say any valid/pertinent information on the subject is totally lacking (agnostic)—so I’ll believe it anyway (deist/theist).”

And I also brought up agnostic theists as well:

“In fact, if you truly believe faith is required, then you're arguing for agnosticism--claiming, in fact, that nobody can know there is a god--they simply have to believe without the knowledge to support the belief. You would be an agnostic theist if this is your stance.”

I have never claimed that agnosticism and atheism were incompatible, and in fact, from these quotes, claimed clearly that theism/atheism can either be based on, or disconnected from agnosticism.

If you’d have asked me if I am an agnostic, I would not have denied it. You just never asked. I’m also, for the record, however, an atheist. And I’ve never denied that either.

You appear to be ignorant regarding the definitions of these labels and their implications. And I recommend perhaps informing yourself a little before you continue to post on this topic. I’m not trying to be mean—but you’re really making yourself look foolish because you’re spewing ideas about topics you obviously haven’t studied or spent any time investigating. And you have a forum here of atheists, who know what an atheist is, and you’re trying to debate that nobody in a forum full of atheists knows what an atheist is or what atheism means. Just some humble advice that could be helpful.

”Are you claiming that the default position should be to accept that the God of the Bible exists until it can be demonstrated that he doesn't?”

In a word, NO

Proof of existence has been presented time after time even though you deny it or don’t believe it, but it doesn’t matter what you believe what matters is the truth. When you eat chocolate or smell a flower from a lemon tree or see the harmony of life here on earth, you see God. Some people say they believe that all this was created by explosions and that takes far more belief then a creator. Some people say we came from a primordial gooey substance and that takes far more faith to believe that then a creator. We all have faith, either in man or God, either science or the creator who created the platform for science to be explored. Creation science, I can understand logically, and it fits with an explanation for creation. Evolutionist and big bang theorist is reaching too far for logic to grasp, they also believe man decides truth and that isn’t so, God does.

We must look at the mirror of the Ten Commandments and see how we measure up to God’s Law. If you lied, stolen or lusted then you will have to be judged by God and spend eternity in hell for breaking those Law’s. You must Repent and turn away from sinning and “trust” Jesus and believe that he did what he did to take your punishment so you would not have to spend eternity in hell. It is a gift for your taking. Reject if you must but that is not logical is it?

“When your life is filled with the desire to see the holiness in everyday life, something magical happens: ordinary life becomes extraordinary, and the very process of life begins to nourish your soul!”

To answer Tracie and Stephen’s question what the bible believes truth is: Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Clarification: Last blog I made a statement about asexual and I was, at the time, thinking of biology and plant life not having sexual organs, but I related to humans and I was wrong, It was pointed out to me and I agree that I was wrong to represent it like I did. The point was made but it was sloppy on my part.

Clarification: "Lets look at the evidence the meaning of the word sat=to please and tanist, meaning ‘dark twin’. How would one please the dark twin?" This was, although true, unnecessary for the point. In context we were breaking words down for meaning and I may have went too far to make my point. Satanists do the bidding of Satan but it wasn’t thought out enough.

I am willing to put out there a hypothesis and after great discussion and debate and listening to feedback I am willing to acknowledge mistakes and restate my position of the original claim. It is scientific and proper to do so, unlike these atheists here that are skirting their position of no existence of God.

Atheist claim that in there label without anything to back it up. They are the ones taking the hard position of no existence of a creator or the belief there of and no proof or basis of that claim. They are just lost and grasping and can’t prove there position. A hypothesis conjured up and concluded without any testing or results there of, how scientific is that? You can’t use the ignorance fallacy for an augment either so put up or shut up.

They use tactics like “you are stupid and your dumb “and name calling like that but fail to state their position. They fail at a true debate. They try to discredit the person they are debating with. Example person b(believer) “I believe we are all equal” person A(atheist) “oh yea you are a jerk” It is comical to state my positions on a subject and they just come up with things like “You, sir, are an unbelievable idiot.” or “You appear to be ignorant” or “example of his reactionary fooloshness and inability to comprehend simple concepts.” By the way you misspelled foolishness, you missed that simple concept Martin, looks like you are no better then me. We all make mistakes my friend. One person is no better then the other, it is that mentality that created Nazism and skin heads and KKK and democrats and such. You are no better then the poorest uneducated child in Africa, dude. You are definitely no better then I am.

”The difference, my friend, is that if an atheist rapes a child - their atheism is completely irrelevant to the act.”

I agree 100% now we are getting somewhere. When thousands of priests rapes children and proclaim they know God. Christianity is completely irrelevant to the act.

You are stating a circular argument and it is not fair to lump together “Christian Love” with profane vulgar acts. This is hypocrisy, are you too proud to see this?

Tracie ” And when I saw that what was true conflicted with my belief in god's existence, then truth won out.” prove this statement.

” Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. ” this is a false statement, Tracie look at the definition you can’t change it. They deny the existence of God. I like you Tracie I hope God will touch both you and Stephen someday in your lives.

One more thing Matt,

You were making the statement that I gave atheist a bad name because I was a dick in the past to Christians and you said you would never do that. If we analyze this we see that I had no moral upbringing, my father taught me how to lie effectively and to deceive for gain, in the world. I was morally bankrupt and when I read the Bible I saw that I have to answer for my immorality. You on the other hand had an upbringing with morals and your father taught to fear the Lord and you will answer to him someday (I am only assuming). So you would never have acted like I did because of you being raised in a home with morals. I was not and did not know how to act respectfully. You are claiming that it is the atheists who have the “good name” when in fact it was because of you being raised as a Christian that instilled the morals. Do you disagree?

The difference, my friend, is that if an atheist rapes a child - their atheism is completely irrelevant to the act.” I agree 100% now we are getting somewhere. When thousands of priests rapes children and proclaim they know God. Christianity is completely irrelevant to the act.

You are stating a circular argument and it is not fair to lump together “Christian Love” with profane vulgar acts. This is hypocrisy, are you too proud to see this?

I'm not too proud to see that, you're simply wrong. I never stated that Priests are raping children because they are Christians - I said that the sort of messages that were sent to Possummomma were. Please work on your reading comprehension - we'll get much farther if you respond to what I've actually said.

On a side note, if I had made the claim that you think I made, the fallacy wouldn't have been 'circular' it would have been 'special pleading'.

So you would never have acted like I did because of you being raised in a home with morals. I was not and did not know how to act respectfully. You are claiming that it is the atheists who have the “good name” when in fact it was because of you being raised as a Christian that instilled the morals. Do you disagree?

You bet your ass I do. My ethical convictions are not a by-product of my Christian upbringing. There are many things that Christians consider immoral that I do not. My morality was rebuilt, from the ground up, as soon as I recognized that the moral precepts in Christianity were, in fact, immoral. I spent a great deal of time focusing on the best way to make decisions about moral issues, deciding what sort of premises were valid starting points and considering as many different dilemmas as I could - in order to ensure that my moral beliefs were as reasonably justiified as my other beliefs.

Your attempt to disregard the effort I've put into this only demonstrates the effort you haven't put into it. Why didn't you just make the tired old argument that the only reason atheists are moral is that God has written his moral code in the heart of every man? Oh, wait...you did. And you continue to do it - it's the very basis for the apologetic tactic of using the Ten Commandments as a mirror.

Unfortunately for your case, the Ten Commandments (which version, by the way?) are not the paragon of morality that you beleive them to be. What sort of divine moral author, when making a top ten list bans graven images, but forgets to ban slavery?

Now...I asked a direct question: Are you claiming that the default position should be to accept that the God of the Bible exists until it can be demonstrated that he doesn't?

And your answer was "no"...followed by a bunch of claims that it's just so obvious that God exists, even eating chocolate is proof of god.

How does eating chocolate prove that god exists? And, even if it did, how is it proof that the god you believe in exists?

Hopefully you can answer those questions without running off on tangents about the big bang, evolution, quotes from the Bible or simply asserting that God exists.

I just ate a piece of chocolate - how does that prove that your god exists? (Show your work).

Proof of existence has been presented time after time even though you deny it or don’t believe it, but it doesn’t matter what you believe what matters is the truth.

Prove it Dan. And I seriously hope this is not it:

When you eat chocolate or smell a flower from a lemon tree or see the harmony of life here on earth, you see God.

You perceive god, Dan. I have already heard this argument from my sister, and I will tell you what I told her:

When I see a beautiful flower, I wonder what evolutionary processes and what kind of environments existed to make that flower so beautiful. And I also wonder what processes evolved in me to recognize and perceive the flower’s beauty. When my sister looks at that same flower, she wonders at the glory and magnificence of God's creation.

This simple statement shows you’re “proof” is wrong. We all see the world in different ways, and how you see it all depends on the way you (and others) have trained your brain to perceive it. But it doesn't PROVE anything! There is no proof in perception, Dan.

Some people say they believe that all this was created by explosions and that takes far more belief then a creator. Some people say we came from a primordial gooey substance and that takes far more faith to believe that then a creator.

Dan, once again we see another dishonest oversimplification from you. You have shown in the past that you do not have even a basic understanding of science, so I would suggest not going there. You still have countless arguments that you have started and not finished, let's not change the subject again.

But most importantly: Big Bang Cosmology, evolution, and abiogenesis have NOTHING to do with atheism.

We all have faith, either in man or God, either science or the creator who created the platform for science to be explored. Creation science, I can understand logically, and it fits with an explanation for creation. Evolutionist and big bang theorist is reaching too far for logic to grasp, they also believe man decides truth and that isn’t so, God does.

You and Ray and all the other Christian apologists INSIST on putting atheism in the same category as religion. I have some ideas on why this may be. Other religions have been around Christianity for centuries, and they have not significantly threatened Christianity. But atheism is different. Atheism has NO DOGMA, claims NO KNOWLEDGE, and has only ONE BELIEF. Apologists try to call atheism just "another faith" because it makes them feel safer and surer of themselves (and their beliefs) to do so. They don't want to see their "possibly made-up" religion go head-to-head with an acknowledgement of a lack of evidence. They would rather see their "possibly made-up" religion go against someone else's "possibly made-up" religion. Do you see what I am getting at, Dan?

Your definition of atheism is wrong, and you are continually ignoring the information we are giving you. Stop lying to yourself, Dan.

Clarification: Last blog I made a statement about asexual and I was, at the time, thinking of biology and plant life not having sexual organs, but I related to humans and I was wrong, It was pointed out to me and I agree that I was wrong to represent it like I did. The point was made but it was sloppy on my part.

Biology has no sex organs? Uhh... Dan, you have just shown that you don’t even know what biology is…

”There are many things that Christians consider immoral that I do not.”

Really? I would like to hear some. To clarify I don’t want to hear what Ted Haggard believes is moral because again that is not a Christian that is a false convert. Tell me what us Christians that takes our morals from God, have different then “your standard” of morals.

“I just ate a piece of chocolate - how does that prove that your god exists? (Show your work).”

In the next blog I answered it further to Otto so as to repeat myself just go there. I explained to him to take the salvation challenge as well as you should.

Not to anger you or anything of the sort but the ones who do not follow what the Jesus tells them to do or those that fall away from God are the false converts I was talking about and on my blog, such as yourself, the “true and false conversion” clip explains it quite well.

”Why didn't you just make the tired old argument that the only reason atheists are moral is that God has written his moral code in the heart of every man? Oh, wait...you did. And you continue to do it - it's the very basis for the apologetic tactic of using the Ten Commandments as a mirror.”

Prove to me scripturally that this is a bad method, please! If we are wrong point it out. Point me in the correct direction. I can back up my beliefs scripturally, 2 Corinthians 5:11 comes to my mind that we should even use God and hell as a way to convince people. Jesus in Matthew 19:18 used the commandments, was he wrong?

I will speculate to answer you slavery question but I know how all of you love to attack me out of context and scream something like “DAN LOVES SLAVERY” and such but I am willing to sick my neck out a little to try to answer the question for you. I am only trying to ponder the why’s which is what you are asking but we are not to know all the why’s and I can be so very far off the mark. So as to clarify this is only (again) my speculation on “WHY” God does things.

Did you ever ponder that just maybe God wanted slavery as a symbol because like children need to learn (as well as us all) that there is a “boss” or an ultimate authority over them. Maybe in those days there was chaos and pandemonium.

Gods chosen people were slaves in Egypt at first. We are slaves to our sins and we are servants to God. I don’t see harm in that thinking. I am a slave to my employer back when I had one. When America thinks of slavery we think wiping and beatings and downtrodden but prove that the slaves “BACK THEN” we treated badly. Abraham’s wife gave her slave girl to Abraham to birth children even. Tell me these day men who can be bought. If I gave you 6.8 million would you live with me and cook and clean my toilets? Some would say yes. People were bought and sold as a commodity back then. If I paid you that much I would expect quite a bit from you. Maybe the equivalent back then to buy someone was 6.8 million and the slave went with the master and gave the money to his family to live on. I don’t know for sure but the difference is I would never question God’s authority because I trust him and trust that he is righteous in EVERYTHING he does. He has the big picture not I. One department of a corporation may have issues with the budget but they do not have the “Big Picture” that the CEO has. Now God is so much more Holy and Righteous then any CEO but just as an example to help you justify it.

”Hopefully you can answer those questions without running off on tangents about the big bang, evolution, quotes from the Bible or simply asserting that God exists.

OK let me pose something to you. When I was a part of a start-up company long ago (in six years we were making $50 million a year) I had a lot of people complaining, such as you, of how unfair things were or that we didn’t have the right equipment and negative input such as this. So I posed to my crew that if someone had a complaint to not just come to me with the complaint but to come to me with the issue and a “solution” to solve that problem. BTW the complaining was reduced to near zero and we had empowered employees that knew how to solve issues that arise with a company of that kind of growth.

So I pose to you “You are God” how would you do thing different then him to solve the issues that he has? Remember you have an entire race to deal with. Millions of variables how would you solve his issues? Play God for a day and set the world strait. Pick a subject of your choice and solve it better then him.

Example problem there is free will how do you instill morals into a human race and keep them from hurting others? Do a blog about it call it “Atheist are now God” how you would solve the world with ultimate authority instead of complaining people on the sidelines. I would be very interested as to the others input and how people would pose different situations and solve the problems. It could be fun and it may change people’s mind of how hard it is to run a universe.

Clarification for Andrew: Definitions of asexual:not forming part of a cycle which involves fertilisation and meiosis.vegetative; without sex organs, sex cells, or sexual spores, as the anamorph of a fungus. Vegetative reproductions - er cuttings and division.

The rest of you are handling this so-called "discussion" well already, but does someone want to tell Dan that plants DO have sex organs, sex cells and sexual spores? The fact that you can reproduce a plant by cutting or grafting doesn't mean plants are asexual. Plants and fungi aren't the same thing. There are these little things called anthers and pistils, which are the male and female sexual organs of flowering plants. That's what insects are doing when they cross-pollenate plants. They're helping the plants sexually reproduce by mixing the pollen. It's not complicated.

Dan said:"If I gave you 6.8 million would you live with me and cook and clean my toilets? Some would say yes. People were bought and sold as a commodity back then. If I paid you that much I would expect quite a bit from you. Maybe the equivalent back then to buy someone was 6.8 million and the slave went with the master and gave the money to his family to live on."

Am I understanding what you said correctly? Are you saying that when slaves were sold and bought, they were the ones recieving the money from their own purchase? When slaves were put up for sale, they were the ones sticking their own "for sale" signs up? This seems to indicate that slaves had a certain freedom over themselves, in that they controled their own trade, as well as the money surrounding it.

Once again, Dan, an error in the basic facts that you've built your "argument" on. This time you're mixing up slaves with (outrageously) paid servants. It's like building a house. To make a good argument, you need to build your agument on a solid rock of evidence and accuracy. You, instead, keep building on the sandy beach, not even wondering why you have to rebuild it each tide.

Plus, I think god could have found a better, and kinder, way to give humanity the concept of us needing a "boss" or ultimate authority over us (according to Dan) than the enslavement of millions (billions?) of people throughout history, up to and INCLUDING today.

So I pose to you “You are God” how would you do thing different then him to solve the issues that he has? Remember you have an entire race to deal with. Millions of variables how would you solve his issues? Play God for a day and set the world strait. Pick a subject of your choice and solve it better then him.

Matt ”There are many things that Christians consider immoral that I do not.”

Dan: Really? I would like to hear some.

I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral. Neither is heterosexual sex outside of marriage (among consenting adults). I don't believe that disbelief/apostasy is immoral - for that matter, I don't believe that thoughts (lust, etc.) can be immoral. They can lead to actions that are moral, as actions have consequences. I don't believe that abortion is immoral.

Of the 10 commandments only two (murder/theft) are federal laws, a third (adultry) is only on the books in a few places and rarely prosecuted. The rest don't translate to laws. I do believe that adultery is immoral, but I don't think it's the sort of morality we should be legislating. I don't think taking any god's name in vain or uttering profanities is immoral. I'm sure there are many, many more, but I have no idea what your list of immoral acts includes.

I asked: “I just ate a piece of chocolate - how does that prove that your god exists? (Show your work).”

Dan: In the next blog I answered it further to Otto so as to repeat myself just go there. I explained to him to take the salvation challenge as well as you should.

Ok, I'll go read your blog this once....but if you don't explain how eating chocolate is proof that your god exists - I'm going to write you off as a liar.

Dan: Not to anger you or anything of the sort but the ones who do not follow what the Jesus tells them to do or those that fall away from God are the false converts I was talking about and on my blog, such as yourself, the “true and false conversion” clip explains it quite well.

More content stolen from Ray Comfort. It's a pity that you don't see that what you're really saying is that everyone is a true convert right up until the point that you say they aren't.

I wrote: ”Why didn't you just make the tired old argument that the only reason atheists are moral is that God has written his moral code in the heart of every man? Oh, wait...you did. And you continue to do it - it's the very basis for the apologetic tactic of using the Ten Commandments as a mirror.”

Dan babbled: Prove to me scripturally that this is a bad method, please!

I didn't say it wasn't scriptural. What I've repeatedly said is that it doesn't matter if it's in the Bible or scripturally justifiable - what matters is it true. Of course using the Ten Commandments is scriptural, you dolt, they're in the scriptures.

No please explain why anyone should pay attention to anything that book says.

Dan asked So I pose to you “You are God” how would you do thing different then him to solve the issues that he has? Remember you have an entire race to deal with. Millions of variables how would you solve his issues?

Are you really proposing that God simply did the best he could? Are you really claiming that? This omnipotent being couldn't have done any better than this?! I can do better than this without trying...

1. Eliminate famine and disease. Neither of these is necessary to the "end goals" that your religion avers. I can still freely chose to serve Jesus or "sin" - in your simplistic worldview.2. Start at the end. If Earth is a soul-sorting mechanism and God knows the final outcome - start at the end. Send the righteous souls to heaven, right from the start and the evil ones to hell.

I could probably do more, but you'll object to the ones I've already done...so what's the point?

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.